Jump to content

F/A-18D: The perfect trainer for DCS


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, jojyrocks said:

 

 

My point was...it would be better to go with a FRESH design and, yes, I am aware of the fact that Super Hornet series is still very much classified and in full service.

 

Just pointing out, A super hornet would have been better, even if some of the cockpit does look the same as legacy. Having the F-18D as AI would be pretty good though...

 

As yet another fresh module, it is only good for Multiplayer folks/crowd. The pilot seat would be mostly the same as our current Hornet model.

 

I'd rather have ED input more time and effort focus on Game engine and or some Fresh modules, like the Phantom for instance...

 

So many people want the Phantom, and I can't fully understand why...

 

I get that for its day it is a very powerful fighter, and almost completely dominated the air in the Vietnam war, it only did that once the pilots figured out how to use its strengths in close, and it got a freaking gun. That said, one of the issues that I have with the Phantom is one of information. Sure, plenty of publicly available information is out there, the problem is that actually building a proper F4, from scratch for DCS is likely to be a very tough challenge, that ED has stated a few times they aren't in a position to do. My guess is that there's likely the fact that not many Phantoms are still flying, and of the ones that are, the owners are particularly protective of their Phantoms. Worse yet, all of the missile systems and radar systems have been ripped out (par for the course for del-milling something), and it wouldn't surprise me if some of those systems are still classified even today.

 

Believe me, I'd love to see the Phantom in DCS, but unless a 3rd party comes along with access to the information needed to make one properly, DCS won't be seeing a Phantom for a long time. Also, ED is working on the engine, they've said as much through multiple news letters. It's a long process, and something even companies with bigger budgets tend to be very wary on pushing very hard until they need to. So them taking their time with it isn't too shocking, nor is it something I consider a bad thing. I'd rather them release it in a functioning state later than a buggy state next month.

 

Now that that's out of my system, I wouldn't mind a D-model Hornet, because it would already have 90% of the systems a C model has, (the other 10% being stuff for the back seat), and if I'm trying to train someone in the Hornet, it's much easier to be in the pit with them so I can see what they see without having to try and yell at them over discord "YOUR OTHER LEFT!" It's also a good tool for navigation training as well. When I first attempted to join VCSG-3 they had me do an acceptance flight with one of their more senior RIOs who knew how to navigate a pilot, and two-seater aircraft are perfect for such a thing. After all, if they try to form up on me and there's a connection bug on the server, it could end with us both spiraling towards the ground in pieces (and laughing). So, getting in the backseat and telling them "go here, here, here, and here, drop a few bombs, and let's get back to base" is perfectly adequate in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

So many people want the Phantom, and I can't fully understand why...

 

I get that for its day it is a very powerful fighter, and almost completely dominated the air in the Vietnam war, it only did that once the pilots figured out how to use its strengths in close, and it got a freaking gun. That said, one of the issues that I have with the Phantom is one of information. Sure, plenty of publicly available information is out there, the problem is that actually building a proper F4, from scratch for DCS is likely to be a very tough challenge, that ED has stated a few times they aren't in a position to do. My guess is that there's likely the fact that not many Phantoms are still flying, and of the ones that are, the owners are particularly protective of their Phantoms. Worse yet, all of the missile systems and radar systems have been ripped out (par for the course for del-milling something), and it wouldn't surprise me if some of those systems are still classified even today.

 

Believe me, I'd love to see the Phantom in DCS, but unless a 3rd party comes along with access to the information needed to make one properly, DCS won't be seeing a Phantom for a long time. Also, ED is working on the engine, they've said as much through multiple news letters. It's a long process, and something even companies with bigger budgets tend to be very wary on pushing very hard until they need to. So them taking their time with it isn't too shocking, nor is it something I consider a bad thing. I'd rather them release it in a functioning state later than a buggy state next month.

 

Now that that's out of my system, I wouldn't mind a D-model Hornet, because it would already have 90% of the systems a C model has, (the other 10% being stuff for the back seat), and if I'm trying to train someone in the Hornet, it's much easier to be in the pit with them so I can see what they see without having to try and yell at them over discord "YOUR OTHER LEFT!" It's also a good tool for navigation training as well. When I first attempted to join VCSG-3 they had me do an acceptance flight with one of their more senior RIOs who knew how to navigate a pilot, and two-seater aircraft are perfect for such a thing. After all, if they try to form up on me and there's a connection bug on the server, it could end with us both spiraling towards the ground in pieces (and laughing). So, getting in the backseat and telling them "go here, here, here, and here, drop a few bombs, and let's get back to base" is perfectly adequate in my opinion.

No-one has ever said or implied it's an information issue. ED stated they didn't have development resources, so it's on the backburner.

It's a widely exported aircraft, with just over 5000 built and a long service life. Info isn't going to be an issue.

 

Also your statement that "not many Phantoms are still flying" isn't entirely correct, especially when implying all the ones that do are civil ones. Phantoms are still active in military use, namely Turkey, South Korea, Greece and Iran. Japan only retired their fleet last year in December!


Edited by Buzzles
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Buzzles said:

No-one has ever said or implied it's an information issue. ED stated they didn't have development resources, so it's on the backburner.

It's a widely exported aircraft, with just over 5000 built and a long service life. Info isn't going to be an issue.

 

Also your statement that "not many Phantoms are still flying" isn't entirely correct, especially when implying all the ones that do are civil ones. Phantoms are still active in military use, namely Turkey, South Korea, Greece and Iran. Japan only retired their fleet last year in December!

 

 

And I think Japan would be about the only ones to go ham on allowing ED to crawl all over their Phantoms, they've done so before with various game developers and anime studios. I wouldn't trust a Greek Phantom, and South Korea might be wondering if you're a DPRK spy or something... and let's not talk about Turkey... the less said about that hot mess the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

So many people want the Phantom, and I can't fully understand why...

 

I get that for its day it is a very powerful fighter, and almost completely dominated the air in the Vietnam war, it only did that once the pilots figured out how to use its strengths in close, and it got a freaking gun. That said, one of the issues that I have with the Phantom is one of information. Sure, plenty of publicly available information is out there, the problem is that actually building a proper F4, from scratch for DCS is likely to be a very tough challenge, that ED has stated a few times they aren't in a position to do. My guess is that there's likely the fact that not many Phantoms are still flying, and of the ones that are, the owners are particularly protective of their Phantoms. Worse yet, all of the missile systems and radar systems have been ripped out (par for the course for del-milling something), and it wouldn't surprise me if some of those systems are still classified even today.

 

Believe me, I'd love to see the Phantom in DCS, but unless a 3rd party comes along with access to the information needed to make one properly, DCS won't be seeing a Phantom for a long time. Also, ED is working on the engine, they've said as much through multiple news letters. It's a long process, and something even companies with bigger budgets tend to be very wary on pushing very hard until they need to. So them taking their time with it isn't too shocking, nor is it something I consider a bad thing. I'd rather them release it in a functioning state later than a buggy state next month.

 

Now that that's out of my system, I wouldn't mind a D-model Hornet, because it would already have 90% of the systems a C model has, (the other 10% being stuff for the back seat), and if I'm trying to train someone in the Hornet, it's much easier to be in the pit with them so I can see what they see without having to try and yell at them over discord "YOUR OTHER LEFT!" It's also a good tool for navigation training as well. When I first attempted to join VCSG-3 they had me do an acceptance flight with one of their more senior RIOs who knew how to navigate a pilot, and two-seater aircraft are perfect for such a thing. After all, if they try to form up on me and there's a connection bug on the server, it could end with us both spiraling towards the ground in pieces (and laughing). So, getting in the backseat and telling them "go here, here, here, and here, drop a few bombs, and let's get back to base" is perfectly adequate in my opinion.

 

 

 

Yes...you stated it was good for Multiplayer folks, and you like to train others. I did point that out too (Maybe I did not stress that enough...). I am aware of the advantage of two seater jets and it reduces the workload on the pilot etc etc...

 

What I was again pointing out was. You were hoping ED invest on F-18D coz it would serve with that extra seat, for trainers, as in, at Multiplayer, Having those servers. Ok, I do get that.

 

But seeing that I am not a multiplayer guy (Not everyone has a super solid internet connection, and some just stick with SP) and is very much fine with the current Hornet, I just do not see the need of the D version for my use in Single Player. 

 

What I'd rather have ED do is, either of the following: Build a module that does not look like the same for, and satisfies BOTH SP and MP folks.  Not just the MP folks. Upcoming FRESH DESIGN, RAZBAM F-15E is an example of a module that serves BOTH SP and MP folks with having a HUMAN back seater ability in the upcoming module. It is fresh and the cockpit does not look like our F-15C FC3.

 

I wouldn't mind a clickable F-15C even when we do have an FC3 version of it. But IF we do get F-15C clickable and then, I certainly will NOT be hoping for F-15D which is like for us SP folks, kind like flying the F-15D...kinda useless for SP. But useful only for MP folks. I mean, we're also getting Mig 29 clickable...a bit of same kinda version from our Mig 29A FC3.

 

End point is, Let ED decide. If they want to work on F-18D module or not.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/26/2021 at 9:38 AM, Didier Jules said:

 I believe the ARGENTINA AIR FORCE had A-4`s upgraded too by LOCKHEED MARTIN with a cockpit that has F-16 technology on board.

Yup, A-4AR "Fighting Hawk" 36 single seaters and 2 double-twin command OA-4AR, (holding the same capabilities of the single seaters, less fuel do. And as you Said, the have the F-16 Aviones and radar, but with a smaler antenna, built in JMR and so on. 

And they are still in service, they arrived between 1998 and 2004

94565_1284971468.jpg

A4 AR2.jpg

AR pit.jpg

E5w0tXM.jpg

On 4/26/2021 at 9:38 AM, Didier Jules said:

 I believe the ARGENTINA AIR FORCE had A-4`s upgraded too by LOCKHEED MARTIN with a cockpit that has F-16 technology on board.

Yup, A-4AR "Fighting Hawk" 36 single seaters and 2 double-twin command OA-4AR, (holding the same capabilities of the single seaters, less fuel do. And as you Said, the have the F-16 Aviones and radar, but with a smaler antenna, built in JMR and so on. 

And they are still in service, they arrived between 1998 and 2004


Edited by ECV56CHUMBO
Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

I think ED are under estimating how a 2 seater combat aircraft would attract more people into DCS. I have a friend that is interested in playing DCS but just don't have the time to learn everything from a zero.

 

If we have a 2 seater version he can just join on a mission and observe what i'm doing eg radar,TPOD,etc from the back and learn step by step from there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ustio said:

+1

I think ED are under estimating how a 2 seater combat aircraft would attract more people into DCS. I have a friend that is interested in playing DCS but just don't have the time to learn everything from a zero.

 

If we have a 2 seater version he can just join on a mission and observe what i'm doing eg radar,TPOD,etc from the back and learn step by step from there.

 

Or he can just watch a youtube video and observe?

he can pause his mission, watch what needs to be done and copy that, much more efficient learning method than ED creating a trainer jet so you can watch people do something you can watch on youtube.

 

I know it would be great to have a trainer version of every jet, and it would increase immersion but its just not that necessary to have when you can simply watch a video, imo they can use those work hours on more important stuff like ATC comms and polishing those modules they have, working on dmg models, specially ships etc etc there are so many more important issues to be fixed or improoved.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ustio said:

+1

I think ED are under estimating how a 2 seater combat aircraft would attract more people into DCS. I have a friend that is interested in playing DCS but just don't have the time to learn everything from a zero.

 

If we have a 2 seater version he can just join on a mission and observe what i'm doing eg radar,TPOD,etc from the back and learn step by step from there.

 

 

Most of the buyers would ONLY be those who play MP.

 

Suppose If I already own an F-18C Module. I would not be buying a two seater F-18D as its only use can be mostly utilized in MP arena only, co-ordinated play.

 

I mostly stick with SP and would rather want ED spend their resources on something fresh or a bit more different, and one that would serve BOTH MP and SP players and would have buyers from both the SP and MP.

 

I guess we'll just have to see what ED decides on....if they want the D version...

 

 


Edited by jojyrocks
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I doubt that most of the people that want other 2 seater's like the Tornado want it just to play online in MP. I am sure most of them just want to experience what it feels like to operate a Tornado or F-4 Phantom because its thee aircraft that they grow up dreaming to fly one day. And even though they are not my personal dream aircraft like the Tomcat is but none the less I still have an interest to experience them for my self. Just like most of use would jump at the chance to test drive a 1989 Buick Grand National GNX  or a 1970's Muscle car.


Edited by Evoman
Link to post
Share on other sites
En 9/3/2021 a las 9:07, gruntygame dijo:

For those who are unaware, the F/A-18D trades some of the fuel capacity of the C variant for a second seat.

Although the US Marines used it in combat roles most operators used the D variant as a trainer.

 

Ever since the A-10C, DCS has lacked a trainer worthwhile flying in combat and capable of teaching deployment of modern weapons. The F/A-18D is the perfect aircraft to fill this void.

Instead of having the trainee share their screen to the instructor, the instructor can check and change the aircraft and weapon configuration, and demonstrate how to perform maneuvers all whilst sitting in the same aircraft as the trainee. This would be particularly useful when teaching skills such carrier landings, smart weapons employment and ACM. The skills learnt in the F/A-18D would be directly transferable to the F/A-18C and act as a great basis of knowledge when transitioning to other modern multi-role fighters. Better yet, the F/A-18D would be perfectly capable in a modern DCS mission (even without the WSO equipment found in the USMC planes).

 

I don't imagine it would take much work for ED to make since most of the work would be done once the F/A-18C is out of early access. As for selling it, I think selling it as a standalone aircraft and in a bundle with the F/A-18C would work well if ED charged extra for the bundle (proportional to how much extra work was required). For owners of one of the standalone aircraft a discount could be applied for the one they don't own allowing current F/A-18C owners to become instructors and graduated F/A-18D pilots to transition to the single seat fighter.

I would also suggest F-16D & F versions, dual seaters. Not only for trainer also as Wild Weasel. This way, maybe ONE-on-ONE trainings can be had between newbe and more experienced DCS F-16 users. (if that is technically possible in multiplayer).

The same for A-4 SKYHAWK. Why not a TA-4J Skyhawk? Trainers: M345 LEONARDO, M346 LEONARDO, YAK-130, MIG35 two seater, MIG29M2 two seater, MIG29UB TRAINER two seater, ALPHA JET High Definition, T38C TALON, T6 TEXAN II (turboprop), LOCKHEED MARTIN/KAI T-50A, BOEING T-7, BOEING TAV-8B dual seat HARRIER II, F-5F Tiger. 

Mirage 2000D two seater, KFir BLOCK 60 single and two seater versions (with the F414 engine as IAI promotes it as KFIR NG). 

 

T-50A - 2.jpg

T-50A - 3.jpg

T-50A - 5.jpg

T-50A - 6.jpg

T-50A - 7.jpg

T-50A - 8.jpg

T-50A - 9.jpg

T-50A - 10.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg

6.jpg

7.jpg

14.jpg

16.jpg

18.jpg

26.jpg

31.jpg

hace 17 horas, Evoman dijo:

I doubt that most of the people that want other 2 seater's like the Tornado want it just to play online in MP. I am sure most of them just want to experience what it feels like to operate a Tornado or F-4 Phantom because its thee aircraft that they grow up dreaming to fly one day. And even though they are not my personal dream aircraft like the Tomcat is but none the less I still have an interest to experience them for my self. Just like most of use would jump at the chance to test drive a 1989 Buick Grand National GNX  or a 1970's Muscle car.

 

Tornadoes would be a great asset if there was a WALES map with the MACH LOOP or a US map with the STAR WARS ALLEY. (But then TORNADOES would have to be made in all its versions). I propose also more dual seat deltas like the KFIR BLOCK 60 (colombian air force) with a F414 engine. 

IAI Kfir Block 60.jpg

IAI KFIR BLOCK 60+ 1.jpg

IAI KFIR BLOCK 60+ 2.jpg

IAI KFIR BLOCK 60+ 3.jpg

IAI KFIR BLOCK 60+ 4.jpg

IAI KFIR BLOCK 60+ 5.jpg

IAI KFIR BLOCK 60+ 6.jpg

Kfir Block 60 2.jpg

Kfir Block 60 3.jpg

Kfir Block 60 4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
En 27/4/2021 a las 8:25, Tank50us dijo:

 

So many people want the Phantom, and I can't fully understand why...

 

I get that for its day it is a very powerful fighter, and almost completely dominated the air in the Vietnam war, it only did that once the pilots figured out how to use its strengths in close, and it got a freaking gun. That said, one of the issues that I have with the Phantom is one of information. Sure, plenty of publicly available information is out there, the problem is that actually building a proper F4, from scratch for DCS is likely to be a very tough challenge, that ED has stated a few times they aren't in a position to do. My guess is that there's likely the fact that not many Phantoms are still flying, and of the ones that are, the owners are particularly protective of their Phantoms. Worse yet, all of the missile systems and radar systems have been ripped out (par for the course for del-milling something), and it wouldn't surprise me if some of those systems are still classified even today.

 

Believe me, I'd love to see the Phantom in DCS, but unless a 3rd party comes along with access to the information needed to make one properly, DCS won't be seeing a Phantom for a long time. Also, ED is working on the engine, they've said as much through multiple news letters. It's a long process, and something even companies with bigger budgets tend to be very wary on pushing very hard until they need to. So them taking their time with it isn't too shocking, nor is it something I consider a bad thing. I'd rather them release it in a functioning state later than a buggy state next month.

 

Now that that's out of my system, I wouldn't mind a D-model Hornet, because it would already have 90% of the systems a C model has, (the other 10% being stuff for the back seat), and if I'm trying to train someone in the Hornet, it's much easier to be in the pit with them so I can see what they see without having to try and yell at them over discord "YOUR OTHER LEFT!" It's also a good tool for navigation training as well. When I first attempted to join VCSG-3 they had me do an acceptance flight with one of their more senior RIOs who knew how to navigate a pilot, and two-seater aircraft are perfect for such a thing. After all, if they try to form up on me and there's a connection bug on the server, it could end with us both spiraling towards the ground in pieces (and laughing). So, getting in the backseat and telling them "go here, here, here, and here, drop a few bombs, and let's get back to base" is perfectly adequate in my opinion.

A fully high definition F-111E AARDVARK and SU-34 bomber would be nice as well. With detailed side by side cockpits and fully working systems. Even EF-111 Electronic Warfare Aardvark is nice as cold war ELINT and JAMMER plane. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2021 at 11:27 AM, jojyrocks said:

 

 

Most of the buyers would ONLY be those who play MP.

 

Suppose If I already own an F-18C Module. I would not be buying a two seater F-18D as its only use can be mostly utilized in MP arena only, co-ordinated play.

 

I mostly stick with SP and would rather want ED spend their resources on something fresh or a bit more different, and one that would serve BOTH MP and SP players and would have buyers from both the SP and MP.

 

I guess we'll just have to see what ED decides on....if they want the D version...

 

 

 

I dislike answers like this.  A multiplayer trainer would make getting new people more interested in the full simulations.  I have so many friends who would rather fly in multiplayer with me in the back coaching them and able to take over and show them while in the same aircraft.  A two seat trainer would change how easy it is for people to learn how to fly deep simulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jwflowersii said:

I dislike answers like this.  A multiplayer trainer would make getting new people more interested in the full simulations.  I have so many friends who would rather fly in multiplayer with me in the back coaching them and able to take over and show them while in the same aircraft.  A two seat trainer would change how easy it is for people to learn how to fly deep simulations.

 

While I understand (and share) your frustration, we have to acknowledge some uncomfortable facts when it comes to MP trainers:

  • As ED stated (I believe in a recent GR interview), MP make out only 2% to 10% of their customer base. Let's make it 20% just to be on the safe side. An MP plane caters to a small niece market
  • This may seem trivial, but needs reiteration: an MP plane needs at least two players. Scheduling MP games often requires a lot of commitment.
  • Trainers are often 'boring' in SP: as the Albatros and C101 show, they really aren't great SP fighters. I love the C101, but only fly it to train precision approaches or the occasional joyriding in Syria.
  • As an avid MP myself, and the odd happy exception to the rule notwithstanding, MP training is simply not something that many people find enjoyable. I fly regularly (some 4 hours per week) with two friends of mine. We all own the C101, Albatros and some other multi-crew planes, including the Huey (which is phenomenal fun as Multi-Crew). Maybe I'm just as terrible an instructor as I'm a student (high probability), but my observation is that few people really enjoy MP flying lessons. MP coop - hell yes. But there's something off-putting about 'burning up' rare game-time in an instructor/student setting when both could be flying by themselves and blow stuff up together. I can't really put my finger on it, but whenever we talk about shooting some landings in a trainer to improve our skill or just goof around raining death on tanks, the tanks always win (well, actually the tanks lose, but you know what I mean). So I mostly train by myself, and use literature and (of course) video to improve my skill, which I then put to good use when MP. If your friends are just a tiny bit like my friends or I, flying with you riding backseat in DCS will not change their opinion of DCS. They already decided that they like it. Nor, I wager, will they learn a lot. They'd argue that they'll learn that by themselves, or "on-the-job", and now let's "light the 'burners" of some none-trainer plane.
  • MC (versus MP) is something that further bifurcates the already small MP segment. I *love* MC. But I'm the odd one out - I also enjoy non-pilot roles (especially in the Huey). In another interview (probably also by GR, but I can't remember), one person remarked on the fact that while MC planes are a great idea and loved, their observation was that although everyone wanted to fly the Tomcat, few were willing to train as RIO. I believe that this holds true for the majority of those few who MP regularly. Pilot yup, other role - nah. So multi-role planes need to come up with good AI that makes the plane flyable (an interesting challenge which I'm really looking forward to see how they solved in in the Hind and Apache)

So while a multi-crew capable free initial plane would surely be able to show off more of DCS's impressive networking capabilities, I believe its actual impact on marketability to be negligible versus normal non-multi-crew MP, and a trainer plane may even be detrimental due to bad SP performance. Would I want such a plane to be available? Yes. So far I own every single plane DCS and their partners offer (bar some warbirds, but including the Hawk), and that's not about to change. But relying on student/instructor MC as a main vector for selling more complex planes IMHO is a dangerous gamble with very little chance for payback (i.e. expense they could better invest in making DCS more accessible to solo players). 

 

All IMHO, of course.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cfrag said:

 

While I understand (and share) your frustration, we have to acknowledge some uncomfortable facts when it comes to MP trainers:

  • As ED stated (I believe in a recent GR interview), MP make out only 2% to 10% of their customer base. Let's make it 20% just to be on the safe side. An MP plane caters to a small niece market
  • This may seem trivial, but needs reiteration: an MP plane needs at least two players. Scheduling MP games often requires a lot of commitment.
  • Trainers are often 'boring' in SP: as the Albatros and C101 show, they really aren't great SP fighters. I love the C101, but only fly it to train precision approaches or the occasional joyriding in Syria.
  • As an avid MP myself, and the odd happy exception to the rule notwithstanding, MP training is simply not something that many people find enjoyable. I fly regularly (some 4 hours per week) with two friends of mine. We all own the C101, Albatros and some other multi-crew planes, including the Huey (which is phenomenal fun as Multi-Crew). Maybe I'm just as terrible an instructor as I'm a student (high probability), but my observation is that few people really enjoy MP flying lessons. MP coop - hell yes. But there's something off-putting about 'burning up' rare game-time in an instructor/student setting when both could be flying by themselves and blow stuff up together. I can't really put my finger on it, but whenever we talk about shooting some landings in a trainer to improve our skill or just goof around raining death on tanks, the tanks always win (well, actually the tanks lose, but you know what I mean). So I mostly train by myself, and use literature and (of course) video to improve my skill, which I then put to good use when MP. If your friends are just a tiny bit like my friends or I, flying with you riding backseat in DCS will not change their opinion of DCS. They already decided that they like it. Nor, I wager, will they learn a lot. They'd argue that they'll learn that by themselves, or "on-the-job", and now let's "light the 'burners" of some none-trainer plane.
  • MC (versus MP) is something that further bifurcates the already small MP segment. I *love* MC. But I'm the odd one out - I also enjoy non-pilot roles (especially in the Huey). In another interview (probably also by GR, but I can't remember), one person remarked on the fact that while MC planes are a great idea and loved, their observation was that although everyone wanted to fly the Tomcat, few were willing to train as RIO. I believe that this holds true for the majority of those few who MP regularly. Pilot yup, other role - nah. So multi-role planes need to come up with good AI that makes the plane flyable (an interesting challenge which I'm really looking forward to see how they solved in in the Hind and Apache)

So while a multi-crew capable free initial plane would surely be able to show off more of DCS's impressive networking capabilities, I believe its actual impact on marketability to be negligible versus normal non-multi-crew MP, and a trainer plane may even be detrimental due to bad SP performance. Would I want such a plane to be available? Yes. So far I own every single plane DCS and their partners offer (bar some warbirds, but including the Hawk), and that's not about to change. But relying on student/instructor MC as a main vector for selling more complex planes IMHO is a dangerous gamble with very little chance for payback (i.e. expense they could better invest in making DCS more accessible to solo players). 

 

All IMHO, of course.

 

 

 

Nailed it.

 

All these points are spot on. While the community is supportive of the concept of multicrew trainers, their practicalities and their actual uptake is a different story entirely.

I have flown as "virtual-instructor" in (mostly) the C-101 and Yak-52 and also (less so) the Huey. I've got the L-39, but haven't come across any student to teach. Firstly, the participation has been extremely limited compared to flying side-by-side in two single-seaters. And, even when the multicrew was used, the pilot-under-instruction either quickly got bored or quickly got enough basic skills to want to go off and "blow stuff up". An actively participating student who is learning off the instructor is interesting for the instructor. But one who just ignores the training and want to fly around with a passenger is pretty boring for the so-called instructor.

 

Also, with streaming technology, you can quickly get pseudo-multicrew on any aircraft. The pilot-under-instruction simply hits share-screen on Discord and then the instructor can see exactly what they see and help them learn. You can do this with any DCS module. There is no need for more dedicated trainers over the under-utilised ones that we already have.

 

I also have a fair amount of experience with the warbirds community. There is a lot of excitement for the DH.98 Mosquito due out next year, and part of that is related to the suggestion that there will be multicrew to have a human instructor/navigator/radio-operator. However, while many people say they want to have a human navigator, I've hardly seen anyone (if any at all) state they want to be that human-navigator. A bit like the human-RIO on the F-14, really.

 

Of course any new aircraft is nice, sure. But in my personal opinion, we don't need development on other things either delayed or sacrificed, for an F/A-18D which will see little use.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xvii-Dietrich said:

 

 

 

Nailed it.

 

All these points are spot on. While the community is supportive of the concept of multicrew trainers, their practicalities and their actual uptake is a different story entirely.

I have flown as "virtual-instructor" in (mostly) the C-101 and Yak-52 and also (less so) the Huey. I've got the L-39, but haven't come across any student to teach. Firstly, the participation has been extremely limited compared to flying side-by-side in two single-seaters. And, even when the multicrew was used, the pilot-under-instruction either quickly got bored or quickly got enough basic skills to want to go off and "blow stuff up". An actively participating student who is learning off the instructor is interesting for the instructor. But one who just ignores the training and want to fly around with a passenger is pretty boring for the so-called instructor.

 

Also, with streaming technology, you can quickly get pseudo-multicrew on any aircraft. The pilot-under-instruction simply hits share-screen on Discord and then the instructor can see exactly what they see and help them learn. You can do this with any DCS module. There is no need for more dedicated trainers over the under-utilised ones that we already have.

 

I also have a fair amount of experience with the warbirds community. There is a lot of excitement for the DH.98 Mosquito due out next year, and part of that is related to the suggestion that there will be multicrew to have a human instructor/navigator/radio-operator. However, while many people say they want to have a human navigator, I've hardly seen anyone (if any at all) state they want to be that human-navigator. A bit like the human-RIO on the F-14, really.

 

Of course any new aircraft is nice, sure. But in my personal opinion, we don't need development on other things either delayed or sacrificed, for an F/A-18D which will see little use.


We have a squadron of over 80 people and we train new people constantly.  We have had to turn people away due to not enough instructor pilots.  Trust me, people who have joined said it's made the game so much  more enjoyable when the learn all the details and correct way to fly.  We've trained complete novices to any flight sim to veteran flight simmers.  We've built our training around the Primary and Advanced Flight Training Navy program.  I think adding a squadron management system for players to connect with others for training would be an excellent idea for people who are trying to get into it.  If you're only playing in single player, you're missing out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, jwflowersii said:


We have a squadron of over 80 people and we train new people constantly.  We have had to turn people away due to not enough instructor pilots.  Trust me, people who have joined said it's made the game so much  more enjoyable when the learn all the details and correct way to fly.  We've trained complete novices to any flight sim to veteran flight simmers.  We've built our training around the Primary and Advanced Flight Training Navy program.  I think adding a squadron management system for players to connect with others for training would be an excellent idea for people who are trying to get into it.  If you're only playing in single player, you're missing out.

 

That is an enviable success you've had - congratulations 🙂. I don't think anyone disputes that trainer aircraft a great in general. It's just that they are rarely used in an already small segment of the market and the financial risk developing them is much bigger compared to investing into a 'crowd pleaser' 

 

1 hour ago, jwflowersii said:

 If you're only playing in single player, you're missing out.

 

Ha. Indeed they are. Big time. And, in the same vein - if they aren't playing in VR they're missing out even more. Still, VR sits at a paltry 2% of DCS users. The fact that something is better does not, unfortunately, mean it's universally adopted. Which really grates on me because I'm hoping for some needed VR QoL improvements.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...